PROTESTANT BISHOPS SEND CANDIDATES FOR ORDERS TO CATHOLIC BISHOPS to Hugh Curwin, archbishop of Dublin, of whose ordination there was never any doubt entertained. And if it be considered that the Church of Rome has, from the commencement, rejected as invalid, both in England and Ireland, the orders conferred by the protestant ritual, while admitting the orders conferred according to the Catholic ritual although in schism, it may not unfairly be concluded that even were direct evidence for Barlow's ordination forthcoming, the validity of Parker's consecration would not be thereby proved, nor would the claims of subsequent protestant ordinations to validity, be in the least. advanced. Canon Estcourt has given a number of instances showing the invariable custom of the Catholic Church in rejecting Anglican orders as null and void, and re-ordaining those Anglican ministers who were converted to the Roman Church and became Catholic priests. PROTESTANT The State Papers preserved in the Record office BISHOPS in London contain a singular proof that Irish CANDIDATES protestant bishops, while in possession of sees, FOR ORDERS declined to ordain candidates for the protestant SENDING TO CATHOLIC BISHOPS ministry, and employed Catholic bishops to perform ordinations in their stead. Christopher Gafney was protestant bishop of Ossory from 1565 to 1576. Queen Elizabeth, in 1577, appointed George Ackworth, D. C. L. and Robert Garvey, L. L. B., to be Commissioners of Faculties in Ireland, with extraordinary powers to enquire into ecclesiastical abuses, and even to summon bishops before them, and deprive them, if necessary. These Commissioners issued a dispensation on the 7th of August, 1578, to Robert Gafney, Precentor of Kilkenny, for "confirming the orders taken by him of a Runagate from Rome, pretending himself to be bishop of Killaloe by the Pope's authority." Archbishop PROTESTANT BISHOPS SEND CANDIDATES FOR ORDERS TO CATHOLIC BISHOPS Loftus, and other protestant bishops in Ireland, complained to the Queen against the proceedings of the Commissioners, and one of their complaints was: "that the said Commissioners dispensed with one Robert Gafney, that was ordered (ordained) more Romano, that he should have the execution of his orders, notwithstanding his offence.' Mr Commissioner Garvey thus defends himself against the accusation of archbishop Loftus:— "I answer that the said (Robert) Gafney took his orders by the licence and with the commendation of his Ordinary, (Christopher Gafney) the late bishop of Ossory, who never gave orders himself, and was tolerated in his said orders, and had excution of them a good while after he took them, both by his Ordinary and Metropolitan." But one explanation can be offered for this conduct of the protestant bishop in never giving orders himself, and employing for that function a Catholic bishop. He must have doubted his own powers to confer valid orders, and have believed his own orders as protestant bishop to be invalid. Nay, as he sent his candidates for orders to a Catholic Bishop, and not to any of his brethren of the protestant episcopal bench, he must have believed them likewise to have had no valid orders. Strange to say, the protestant archbishop of Dublin, in whose province the see of Ossory lay, allowed the priests, thus ordained by a Catholic bishop, to minister in their orders. That the case of the Chancellor of Kilkenny was not a solitary one, is proved by Mr Commissioner Garvey who said: "So I confess that of the great number of priests ordered as aforesaid, and admitted by the bishops in that land to serve in their several dioceses, the Commissioners dispensed with one only, moved with the reasonable causes above specified." BISHOPS MADE BY PROTESTANT RITE NEVER RE-HABILITATED NO BISHOPS RITE WERE BILITATED. There is not a solitary instance of an EdwardMADE BY THE ian bishop, consecrated after the protestant PROTESTANT ritual, having been rehabilitated by Cardinal Pole, EVER RE-HA- or admitted to the possession of an English bishopric in Queen Mary's time. In Ireland a similar course was followed of ignoring the Edwardian bishops. There is indeed one case, that of bishop Walsh of Waterford, which requires examination. Patrick Walsh was promoted to the united sees of Waterford and Lismore in 1551, by Edward VI, by letters patent, dated July 24; the mandate for his consecration and restitution of temporalities, bearing date August 4, 1551, and being directed to Thomas (Lancaster) bishop of Kildare; Dominic (Tirry) bishop of Cork and Cloyne; John, bishop of Ross; Alexander (Devereux), bishop of Ferns; Robert (Travers), bishop of Leighlin; Nicholas (Comin), late bishop of Waterford and Lismore; and John Moore, bishop of Enachduane. The word "suffragan" written after "Moore" in the "Fiant" is scratched out, and does not appear on the patent Roll. It is said that Patrick Walsh was consecrated on the 23rd of October, 1551. As BISHOP the injunction for the new ritual was not issued EXAMINED until January, 1552, and as the consecration was not performed in Dublin, but in the Cashel province, there is no reason to doubt that the Roman or Sarum ritual was used on the occasion. It is certain that after Mary's accession, Walsh continued to sit as bishop of Waterford and Lismore, and of course he had been rehabilitated, and had received absolution from censures from David Wolfe, the Papal Commissary. He continued bishop until his death in 1578. On the 4th of November, in that year, a Vicar Apostolic for Waterford and Lismore was appointed by Brief of the Pope; and in 1629, a bishop was named in Consistory to fill the united CASE OF WALSH RECONCILEMENT OF THE PROTESTANT BISHOP CASEY AS A PRIEST ONLY sees, then many years vacant per obitum bonae memoriae Walesii. (See Vol. II pp. 69 and 70.) Thus acknowledged by Mary, and by the Consistorial act appointing his successor, it is impossible to deny to Patrick Walsh his place in the Catholic hierarchy, nor can his case be brought forward as any exception to the rule, by which the ordinations performed with the Edwardian ritual were pronounced invalid, inasmuch as he was not consecrated by that ritual, but by the Roman rite. RECONCILE THE PROTES The case of another Edwardian bishop, who MENT OF was consecrated about the same time as Walsh, TANT BIS- throws light upon this question. The see of LimHOP CASEY erick was likewise in the province of Cashel, and AS A PRIEST ONLY was considered vacant, in 1551, by Edward VI, who forced John Coyn, the Catholic bishop, to resign the temporalities. To the see, thus vacant, William or Edward Casey, or Cahassey, was appointed by Edward VI. Casey, according to Ware, was consecrated in Dublin for the see of Limerick, on the 25th of October, 1551, by George Brown, archbishop of Dublin; assisted by Thomas Lancaster, bishop of Kildare; Robert Travers, bishop of Leighlin; and Alexander Devereux, bishop of Ferns. It is remarkable that the consecration of Casey was performed in Dublin, while that of Walsh was performed in the province of Cashel. Both were consecrated to bishoprics situated in the same ecclesiastical province of Cashel, at a time when the archbishopric of Cashel was vacant by death. The selection of Dublin for the place of consecration, and of George Browne for the consecrator of Casey, and the employment of Thomas Lancaster (who was himself either twice consecrated or not consecrated at all at the time of Casey's ordination) confirm the belief that Casey's consecration was not performed validly according to the Catholic rite, RECONCILEMENT OF THE PROTESTANT BISHOP CASEY but that the Edwardian ritual, albeit the injunction for its use had not then been issued, was used. This Edward, or William, Casey made his recantation before David Wolfe, the Apostolic Commissary, and in his formal reconcilement, describes himself not as a bishop but as a priest, and he also signs himself as "Edward," although in the mandate for his consecration he is called "William." A copy of this "reconcilement" was forwarded to Walsingham, Secretary of State to Queen Elizabeth, by one Andrew Trollope, in a letter dated October 26, 1587. Trollope says he was credibly informed that the "reconcilement" was made within sixteen years before the date of his letter, but it was probably made at even an earlier date, sometime after the year 1556, when Hugh Lacy was appointed to Limerick, which see was said to be then vacant, not by the deprivation of Casey, whose degree of bishop was utterly ignored, but by the death of the last Catholic bishop, John Coyn or Quin. Casey's "reconcilement" is as follows: "I William Cahessy, priest, sometime named bishop of the diocese of Limerick, yet nothing canonically consecrated, but, by the scismatical authority of Edward, King of England, scismatically preferred to the bishoprick of Limerick aforesaid, wherein I confess to have offended my Creator, my soul and my neighbours, and to have suppressed the Catholic faith, not without great offence of all men and danger of their souls, have openly, in the Cathedral church, before the people, preached against the sacraments and rites of the church, and in my sermons have called the said Edward (to the intent I might obtain his good will), against my conscience, the supreme head of the church of England and Ireland-the altars dedicated to God I have destroyed--the communion of Heretics I have set forth to the clergy and people-and have compelled |